excited utterance exception in Idaho

2022A hearsay statement is properly admitted under the excited utterance exception if: “(1) an occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render inoperative the normal reflective thought process of an observer; and (2) the statement of the declarant must have been a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not the result of reflective thought.” State v. Thorngren, 149 Idaho 729, 732 , 240 P.3d 575, 578 (2010) (citation omitted).

2022A hearsay statement is properly admitted under the excited utterance exception if: “(1) an occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render inoperative the normal reflective thought process of an observer; and (2) the statement of the declarant must have been a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not the result of reflective thought.” State v. Thorngren, 149 Idaho 729, 732 , 240 P.3d 575, 578 (2010) (citation omitted).

2017There are two requirements that must be satisfied in order for the excited utterance exception to apply: “(1) an occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render inoperative the normal reflective thought process of an observer; and (2) the statement of the declarant must have been a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not the result of reflective thought.” State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559, 568 , 165 P.3d 273, 282 (2007) (citations omitted).

2017There are two requirements that must be satisfied in order for the excited utterance exception to apply: “(1) an occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render inoperative the normal reflective thought process of an observer; and (2) the statement of the declarant must have been a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not the result of reflective thought.” State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559, 568 , 165 P.3d 273, 282 (2007) (citations omitted).

2004State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415 , 776 P.2d 424 (1989).

2004State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415 , 776 P.2d 424 (1989).

2004See State v. Kay, 129 Idaho 507 , 927 P.2d 897 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Monroe, 128 Idaho 676 , 917 P.2d 1316 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Valverde, 128 Idaho 237 , 912 P.2d 124 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Stover, 126 Idaho 258 , 881 P.2d 553 (Ct.App.1994).

2004See State v. Kay, 129 Idaho 507 , 927 P.2d 897 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Monroe, 128 Idaho 676 , 917 P.2d 1316 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Valverde, 128 Idaho 237 , 912 P.2d 124 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Stover, 126 Idaho 258 , 881 P.2d 553 (Ct.App.1994).

1996The rationale underlying the excited utterance exception derives from the “special reliability generally regarded as furnished by the excitement suspending the declarant’s powers of reflection and fabrication.” State v. Peite, 122 Idaho 809, 816 , 839 P.2d 1223, 1230 (Ct.App.1992).

1996The rationale underlying the excited utterance exception derives from the “special reliability generally regarded as furnished by the excitement suspending the declarant’s powers of reflection and fabrication.” State v. Peite, 122 Idaho 809, 816 , 839 P.2d 1223, 1230 (Ct.App.1992).

2010Id. at 1156 , 772 P.2d at 1250 .

1999This Court held that the trial court had properly refused admission of the statement as an excited utterance because the remark “was removed by time and distance from the events.” We noted that the rationale underlying the excited utterance exception is the “special reliability which is regarded as furnished by the excitement suspending the declarant’s powers of reflection and fabrication.” Id. at 1156 , 772 P.2d at 1250 (quoting E.

2010In determining whether a hearsay statement falls within the excited utterance exception, a court considers the totality of the circumstances, including: “the amount of time that elapsed between the startling event and the statement, the nature of the condition or event, the age and condition of the declarant, the presence or absence of self-interest, and whether the statement was volunteered or made in response to a question.” Id. (quoting State v. Hansen, 133 Idaho 323, 325 , 986 P.2d 346, 348 (Ct.App.1999)).

2010In determining whether a hearsay statement falls within the excited utterance exception, a court considers the totality of the circumstances, including: “the amount of time that elapsed between the startling event and the statement, the nature of the condition or event, the age and condition of the declarant, the presence or absence of self-interest, and whether the statement was volunteered or made in response to a question.” Id. (quoting State v. Hansen, 133 Idaho 323, 325 , 986 P.2d 346, 348 (Ct.App.1999)).

2007We have noted that “[a] sexual assault is one of the most distressing experiences a person could have.” Parker, 112 Idaho at 4 , 730 P.2d at 924 .

1996State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415, 421 , 776 P.2d 424, 430 (1989) 1 ; State v. *240 Parker, 112 Idaho 1, 4 , 730 P.2d 921, 924 (1986); State v. Stover, 126 Idaho 258, 262-63 , 881 P.2d 553, 557-58 (Ct.App.1994).

2010For example, in State v. Hoover, statements made by an adult abuse victim ten to fifteen minutes after the incident while still crying and hysterical were admissible as excited utterances. 138 Idaho 414, 419-20 , 64 P.3d 340, 345-46 (Ct.App.2003).

2010For example, in State v. Hoover, statements made by an adult abuse victim ten to fifteen minutes after the incident while still crying and hysterical were admissible as excited utterances. 138 Idaho 414, 419-20 , 64 P.3d 340, 345-46 (Ct.App.2003).

1999Whether a statement falls within the excited utterance exception is a discretionary determination to be made by the trial court, Id.; State v. Valverde, 128 Idaho 237, 239 , 912 P.2d 124, 126 (Ct.App.1996), giving consideration to the totality of the circumstances.

1999Whether a statement falls within the excited utterance exception is a discretionary determination to be made by the trial court, Id.; State v. Valverde, 128 Idaho 237, 239 , 912 P.2d 124, 126 (Ct.App.1996), giving consideration to the totality of the circumstances.

2025State v. Ogden, 171 Idaho 843, 855 , 526 P.3d 1013, 1025 (2023). 7 During Palmer’s testimony on direct examination, he testified that he was walking back to his trailer after attempting to retrieve his shop vac from Painter when Palmer heard a gunshot from inside Painter’s house.

2025State v. Ogden, 171 Idaho 843, 855 , 526 P.3d 1013, 1025 (2023). 7 During Palmer’s testimony on direct examination, he testified that he was walking back to his trailer after attempting to retrieve his shop vac from Painter when Palmer heard a gunshot from inside Painter’s house.

2023A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.” I.R.E. 803(2).” The excited utterance exception “has two requirements: ‘(a) There must be an occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render inoperative the normal reflective thought processes of an 12 observer; and (b) the statement of the declarant must have been a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not the result of reflective thought.’” State v. Parton, 154 Idaho 558, 564 , 300 P.3d 1046, 1052 (2013) (quoting State v. Poe, 139 Idaho 885,

2023A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.” I.R.E. 803(2).” The excited utterance exception “has two requirements: ‘(a) There must be an occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render inoperative the normal reflective thought processes of an 12 observer; and (b) the statement of the declarant must have been a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not the result of reflective thought.’” State v. Parton, 154 Idaho 558, 564 , 300 P.3d 1046, 1052 (2013) (quoting State v. Poe, 139 Idaho 885,

2023A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.” I.R.E. 803(2).” The excited utterance exception “has two requirements: ‘(a) There must be an occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render inoperative the normal reflective thought processes of an 12 observer; and (b) the statement of the declarant must have been a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not the result of reflective thought.’” State v. Parton, 154 Idaho 558, 564 , 300 P.3d 1046, 1052 (2013) (quoting State v. Poe, 139 Idaho 885,

2023A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.” I.R.E. 803(2).” The excited utterance exception “has two requirements: ‘(a) There must be an occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render inoperative the normal reflective thought processes of an 12 observer; and (b) the statement of the declarant must have been a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not the result of reflective thought.’” State v. Parton, 154 Idaho 558, 564 , 300 P.3d 1046, 1052 (2013) (quoting State v. Poe, 139 Idaho 885,

2014Hearsay is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” I.R.E. 801(c); State v. Gomez, 126 Idaho 700, 704 , 889 P.2d 729, 733 (Ct.App.1994).

2014Hearsay is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” I.R.E. 801(c); State v. Gomez, 126 Idaho 700, 704 , 889 P.2d 729, 733 (Ct.App.1994).

2011Karlson v. Harris, 140 Idaho 561, 565 , 97 P.3d 428, 432 (2004).

2011Karlson v. Harris, 140 Idaho 561, 565 , 97 P.3d 428, 432 (2004).

2004See State v. Kay, 129 Idaho 507 , 927 P.2d 897 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Monroe, 128 Idaho 676 , 917 P.2d 1316 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Valverde, 128 Idaho 237 , 912 P.2d 124 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Stover, 126 Idaho 258 , 881 P.2d 553 (Ct.App.1994).

2004See State v. Kay, 129 Idaho 507 , 927 P.2d 897 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Monroe, 128 Idaho 676 , 917 P.2d 1316 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Valverde, 128 Idaho 237 , 912 P.2d 124 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Stover, 126 Idaho 258 , 881 P.2d 553 (Ct.App.1994).

1989However, as this Court pointed out in State v. Hester , when comparing the other exceptions to the hearsay rule to the excited utterance exception in I.R.E. 803(2), "Once these elements [the elements of trustworthiness required under I.R.E. 803(24)] are met, the I.R.E. 803(24) exception is equally as valid as any other hearsay exception, such as the universally accepted present sense impression and the excited utterance exceptions, etc." State v. Hester, 114 Idaho at 697 , 760 P.2d at 36 (1988) (emphasis added).